Monthly Archives: June 2009

It’s a regular event for me to find myself somehow “compelled” to read something that I have no desire, energy or intent to read. Maybe I’m just obsessive-compulsive, but I think the Good LORD sometimes “forces” me to stick my snoot in a book or article until I suddenly discover something that (for me, at least) is an important and even exciting insight.

The following PDF file concerns an A.D. 1918 article from the Harvard Law Review that was written to advocate that the American judicial system (which started with “common law pleading” and later changed to “code pleading”) change again to “Notice Pleading”. The position advocated in this article was largely adopted and today “Notice Pleading” is the predominant form of pleading in the American courts.

I didn’t want to read the original article. Didn’t have energy to read it. Didn’t enjoy reading most of it. But I felt “compelled” to read it all, just the same–and sure enough, before I was done I found what was for me, a number of important and powerful insights. The effort was well worth my time and energy–and when the Good LORD “compels” me, it always is.

The entire text is about 10,000 words (about half is from the original author; half is my commentary and analysis). If you’ll take time to read it, I believe you’ll be at least intrigued and you may also even learn something important.

“Why are defendants in federal district court always asked if they are ‘citizens of the United States’?”

He replied without hesitation, “So we can determine jurisdiction. In many cases the federal court does not have jurisdiction over a citizen unless they testify they are a citizen of the United States — meaning a federal citizen under the 14th Amendment.”

I quickly interjected, “What if the individual denied being a citizen of the United States and claimed to be a sovereign citizen of Oklahoma?” The attorney bowled me over with, “We don’t get jurisdiction.”

As I’ve explained in previous articles on the subject of “Notice” (try my search engine or click on the “Notice” category), I’m about 95% convinced that every notice creates the recipient’s right of inquiry. For example, if the IRS sends you a notice, the proper response is not to go silent or to to make statements, but instead to ask questions. If you can ask questions that the IRS is unwilling or unable to answer, you can argue that you’ve been denied procedural due process (notice + opportunity to be heard) by being denied “sufficient notice”. In theory, if the IRS refused to answer your questions, you would not have “sufficient notice” and the court could not acquire jurisdiction to conduct a “hearing” (“opportunity to be heard”).
In the past three weeks, I’ve also become about 95% confident that most of what transpires in our courts is done on the ground of an “action of account”.
What follows is a lengthy, pedantic and sometimes repetitious series of questions to an IRS Notice CP59 which essentially asked me to file a return for A.D. 2007. I don’t expect the IRS to read, let alone answer my questions. At least not at first. I don’t mind. I’m not simply asking questions; I’m also creating evidence. If push comes to shove, I suspect these questions (and more to come) may help persuade the IRS to retreat. If not, they’ll at least provide me with a significant education. The PDF document below attempts to incorporate both the “right of inquiry” strategy that I believe attaches to every notice and some questions on “actions on account”.

This may be one of the most important (or perhaps misguided) articles I’ve ever published. This article describes my theory du jure that virtually all modern court proceedings (from traffic tickets to civil suits to felonies) may be, at base, “actions of account”—and, if so, how those actions might not only be stopped, but stopped easily, almost laughably.

The article is long (23,000 words). I haven’t proofread it. And it’s pretty much pure conjecture. I’m not sure how clearly I’ve conveyed my theory, but if you can understand this article, I think you might become as excited as I am. I could be wrong. I could be way wrong. But my intuition is screaming like a woman in orgasm saying: “Yes, Yesss, Yesssss!!!”

Unfortunately, I sometimes suspect that my intuition has learned how to “fake it”. If so, none of us, including me, can afford to absolutely believe the theory I’m advancing. Nevertheless, for me and for now, this feels more like insight than theory—and important insight, besides. I wouldn’t bet even money, but if you give me odds, I’d bet we just might be close to the proverbial “silver bullet”.

The “U.S. National Debt Clock” (http://www.brilling.com/debt_clock) reports that as of today (June 12th) the “Outstanding Public Debt” was about $11.4 trillion. When divided by the U.S. population, this works out to $37,000 for every American man, woman, and child. Given that the U.S. per capita income is about $39,000 per year, the previous national debt number is intimidating, but not completely unreasonable or overwhelming. If the federal gov-co only owes $11.4 trillion, we can probably work our way out of this debt over the next generation—provided the federales don’t borrow any “money”.